Skip to content

LETTERS: Better ways to spend $1 million

Letter writers suggest developers’ CACs designated for an archway could be used for useful amenities
11102646_web1_WR-gateway-th-DSC_0047
Letter writers suggest developers’ community amenity contributions designated for an archway could be set for useful amenities. (Tracy Holmes photo)

Editor:

Re: White Rock prepares for $1m gateway, March 14.

Given the current development trend, I concur with Coun. David Chesney that two highrises at the Johnston Street ‘gateway’ to the city will probably soon be a reality; one on the Royal Place and a similar tower at Central Plaza, creating a gateway.

There’s no need for the city to spend money on some structure that will be dwarfed by those giants.

Reallocate the money for what it was meant: community amenities, such as outdoor exercise equipment, an extension of the promenade towards Crescent Beach or new paving of beach parking lots, most of which are in horrible shape. Those items would actually serve the community and be “amenities” in the dictionary sense of the word.

As for a ‘gateway’ at Johnston Road, perhaps the developers of the two highrises that will eventually be built there can be persuaded to connect the buildings with a walkway/bridge, like the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur – then, voila, White Rock would have its gateway free of charge!

C. Schroedter, White Rock

• • •

You have $1 million to spend. Do you spend it on a gateway arch or on a playground?

As seems to be usual in White Rock politics, the city council appears to be determined to spend money on projects that leave many in the community wondering. The latest endeavour – a gateway arch over Johnston at North Bluff. The budget is between $500,000 and $1 million.

When I look at projects that are to be paid for by either the taxpayer or the developers through community amenity contributions, I like to look at the benefit to the community as a whole. As well, I look at how would the residents use the facility.

I love public art, but only if we can actually afford to pay for it; only if other basic amenities are taken care of first.

However, I have no issue with one per cent for art on capital projects. For example, the Johnston Road Revitalization Project is budgeted for $4.09 million. In this case, public art should around $41,000. Keep in mind that all the bids came back with one bid almost double the cost the City of White Rock wanted to pay (City’s gateway bids high, March 7).

But who benefits from this gateway arch? Yes, it would be a nice entryway, but does it provide a recreational opportunity for people who live here? Does it help with services the community needs?

Meanwhile, Peace Arch Hospital Foundation worked with the city on an all-abilities park. Peace Arch News explained the cost sharing on this project (Park plan moves ahead, March 22, 2017): “The City of White Rock has confirmed a contribution of $225,000 – leaving just $675,000 to be raised by the foundation, in collaboration with White Rock Firefighters Charity Association.”

The playground benefits all kids, and long-term plans are to have adult exercise equipment running down Duprez Ravine and along the promenade. This project is of benefit for almost everyone in White Rock who wants to exercise and keep fit.

However, I am left pondering the issue of $1 million that the city seemed to have lying around being put to a single gateway arch while being stingy for a playground. It makes me wonder the priorities.

Taxpayers’ money is limited. Council should be focused on the needs of the community and budgeting public art that is affordable. We need a council that has a clear policy on how community amenity contributions are to be spent, and what benefit these funds are to the entire community.

Ken Wuschke, White Rock